Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 619 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8
K
Keats Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8
Drafting the future of the parks: As the public comment period on the most recent draft of the US National Park Service's management policy ends? the core document that governs the day-to-day operation of the national parks appears to reaffirm the principle that preservation is the core "historical" mission of the parks. This has been the philosphy guiding the Park Service "not only" in the US but in other parts of the world as well for years. This has led to park-people conflicts mostly in the South. Earlier Bush administration attempted to give recreation and commercial use a much higher priority in the original draft. But the new draft, after the public comments, reaffirms the core objective of conservation. Does conservation without securing livelihood of forest dependent people mean following a rough road and facing bumps ahead (May be not for US?).


Keats
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8
K
Keats Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8
Where are the great intellectuals..common shed some light on this..


Keats
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by Keats:
Does conservation without securing livelihood of forest dependent people mean following a rough road and facing bumps ahead (May be not for US?).
there are lots of forest, but few national parks.

people whose livelihood are dependant on forest have plenty of places to work. on the other hand, national treasures like the national park, esp ones like Yellowstone are few and far between. IF people whose livelihood depends on forest wish to secure their future, then they need to practice conservation and proper use of the land.

the reality is, those who really do depend on the forest know this, and do this. its the people that demand more forest be open to their exploitation that are having trouble with the idea that some forest are beyond their reach. They care little for the future generations, and the beauty of the treasures, preferring the beauty of a well stocked bar and newest car. These are the ones that try to convience people that people are suffering without turning every forest into a desert or condomendium community.

its possible to put roads into places like yellowstone without killing off all the wildlife. what is difficult is having all the people that want to take suveneirs from the land, or who want to have a picture taken of them petting a bison and having them in close contact with animals and things that are easily destroyed by that contact.

everyone agrees that you need to limit the contact as long as its other people who are limited.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5